Did anyone else notice he threw behind his receivers on those interceptions? I think he did but will have to watch again to be sure.

"While it's true most dragons are cruel, the Terpdragon seems to take particular glee in the misery of others, often tormenting her victims much like a cat plays with a mouse before delivering the final blow."

Terpdragon wrote:Did anyone else notice he threw behind his receivers on those interceptions? I think he did but will have to watch again to be sure.

Yes, clearly. People can refer to it as a"fluke", but the Lynch int. (although should have been caught), was behind him off his back hip into tight coverage. This will happen to every QB in the league from time to time...and they all count.

JSeahawks wrote:100% agree. I would love to put all the QB debate behind us. Unfortunatly I dont think its going to happen.

The debate will never be behind us until Wilson plays consistently well each and every week.

I love my Hawks, but it's very frustrating to watch our offense when our defense is so damn good.........and I know it's not all on Wilson. Stupid penalties, poor pass blocking, WR's that can't beat one on one coverage, dropped passes. There's a lot of blame to go around. But the bottom line is if we want to make the playoffs, the offense has to pick it up. We can't keep trying to eek out wins on the last drive. This team has to start putting other teams away, not let bad teams hang around.

Terpdragon wrote:Did anyone else notice he threw behind his receivers on those interceptions? I think he did but will have to watch again to be sure.

Yes, clearly. People can refer to it as a"fluke", but the Lynch int. (although should have been caught), was behind him off his back hip into tight coverage. This will happen to every QB in the league from time to time...and they all count.

Actually agree with you, Sugarpants. That Lynch fumble had alot to do with RW making a bad decision. However, it's only bad decision BECAUSE the RB's, WR's and TE' are still learning how to play with RW. Lynch wan't expecting it, but he will now.

Last edited by pehawk on Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wilson showed improvement for sure and a lot of his big plays were negated by penalties but I’m not back to drinking the Wilson coolaid just yet. He owes this win to Brandon Browner, or we would be talking about how he’s not the immediate answer for this offense, this year. Many missed opportunities. 3 pts in the red zone when we have a very good running game is not going to cut it against a team like the Pats. The 3-2 record means nothing because that would be the baseline record with our #1 Defense, with any other quarterback including TJack.

Now this week is going to be a tough task. The Patriots have a quick passing attack and a solid RB in Ridley. Our D’s weakness may be the quick passing game. As the top offense in the NFL, they’re going to get their points. If Wilson can at least keep this game close, we’ll talk about getting behind him 100%. If not, the controversy continues.

SalishHawkFan wrote:We don't know what we have in Flynn seems to be the only defense for not starting him. Well we DO know this: After 5 games, Wilson is averaging 60 yards per game less passing than TJack.

What else do we KNOW? That Flynn was much better than TJack.

Do you know what else we KNOW? Flynn couldn't take the job in open competition and beat the rookie when it counted.

49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.

SalishHawkFan wrote:We don't know what we have in Flynn seems to be the only defense for not starting him. Well we DO know this: After 5 games, Wilson is averaging 60 yards per game less passing than TJack.

What else do we KNOW? That Flynn was much better than TJack.

Do you know what else we KNOW? Flynn couldn't take the job in open competition and beat the rookie when it counted.

Don't confuse the word didn't with couldn't.

Flynn is capable, make no mistake. He clearly beat out Tjack, and much can be said about his numbers vs Wilsons numbers, who they played, and with what receivers and running game...ect.

All that is water under the bridge at this point though, and what now is important is who gives us the best chance TODAY. There is no clear answer, so this WILL continue.

This goes way beyond yards. Look at all the numbers, points, int's, QB rating, 1st downs, ect...TJack was better through 5 games with a worse Oline. Ohh...and we beat the SB champ Giants in game 5 last year.

People need to quit comparing Wilson to other rookies and start comparing him to who he is replacing, and who is on the bench...otherwise they are the ones being "retarded".

SalishHawkFan wrote:We don't know what we have in Flynn seems to be the only defense for not starting him. Well we DO know this: After 5 games, Wilson is averaging 60 yards per game less passing than TJack.

What else do we KNOW? That Flynn was much better than TJack.

Do you know what else we KNOW? Flynn couldn't take the job in open competition and beat the rookie when it counted.

Don't confuse the word didn't with couldn't.

Flynn could've beat out Aaron Rodgers for the starting spot as the GB QB, but didn't. Hypothetical limits are fun, aren't they? Except where they meet reality, of course.

For those pleased with the offense improvement, let me ask one question. Did you see the Giants play the Panthers in Carolina on Thursday Night? The Panthers Defense was getting absolutely destroyed by backup receivers on the Giants. The game was so bad that they took Manning out in the 4th quarter. It looked like at times the Panthers had 9 guys on the field. Now this same Pather D came out against our fully healthy offense and held us to 1 TD and scored a defensive TD.

This offense is still a problem, it was just less apparent against this mediocre D. I am done on this subject for the week so mods no need to send me PMs for being negative...

edogg23 wrote:For those pleased with the offense improvement, let me ask one question. Did you see the Giants play the Panthers in Carolina on Thursday Night? The Panthers Defense was getting absolutely destroyed by backup receivers on the Giants. The game was so bad that they took Manning out in the 4th quarter. It looked like at times the Panthers had 9 guys on the field. Now this same Pather D came out against our fully healthy offense and held us to 1 TD and scored a defensive TD.

This offense is still a problem, it was just less apparent against this mediocre D. I am done on this subject for the week so mods no need to send me PMs for being negative...

Let me ask you one question. Do you think that those who are pleased at the improvement do not desire further improvement and are perfectly content for the offense to remain at this level of production forever and ever?

Or, perhaps, do you think they appreciate seeing progress - a step forward from last week to this week - and anticipate that continued experience and work will lead to more progress?

Verndog wrote:All I've asked for is what is wrong with giving him a shot.

I'll answer.

Putting Flynn in takes development time away from Wilson, and Wilson has shown more potential with THIS team than Flynn has - in practice and on the field.

I do not believe for a second that Flynn would put up even remotely similar numbers with THIS team that he did in one game against Detroit, playing with an outstanding WR corps in Green Bay.

I do not believe for a second that Carroll and Bevell would give Flynn a more wide-open passing game than they're giving Wilson. They would clamp down on him the same way they did with Wilson, and the same way they did with Jackson, and the same way they did with Hasselbeck.

In other words, I do not believe - at ALL - that putting Flynn in the lineup would result in a vastly improved passing game or a more explosive offense.

What I DO believe is that putting Flynn in would signal to the team, its fanbase, and everyone watching that Seattle is second-guessing itself and that it can't commit to one guy at the most crucial position on the team. It would signal a lack of faith in a guy they hand-picked. And yes, I believe that Wilson was a hand-picked potential franchise QB while Flynn was a fallback option in case the FO didn't get the guy they wanted. I believe that Wilson's work ethic, arm, and mobility all outrank Flynn's, and that those things are all reasons why Wilson won the starting job in the first place.

I also believe that Wilson needs experience to become a bonafide top-flight starting QB, and that putting Flynn in prevents this without giving us any value in return. I believe that 2013 is where Seattle's SB window is truly and fully open - with more experience for the O-line and perhaps a playmaker at WR - and that this year is crucial for Wilson to gain experience so the offense hits on all cylinders next season. Please don't, however, think that I'm talking about throwing this season away. I think we can still make a run, since anything can happen on any given Sunday. But I think we're better situated for 2013, and that we must get our franchise QB the necessary experience for that to happen. Plus, I disagree that Flynn would be any sort of upgrade, so a developing Wilson is still the top QB on the team.

Verndog wrote:I do not believe for a second that Flynn would put up even remotely similar numbers with THIS team that he did in one game against Detroit, playing with an outstanding WR corps in Green Bay.

I don't think anyone's saying Flynn would put up similar numbers.

What some of us are saying is that RIGHT NOW, in 2012 Flynn gives the passing offense a better chance of succeeding over a rookie that's finding his way in the league.

Verndog wrote:I do not believe for a second that Flynn would put up even remotely similar numbers with THIS team that he did in one game against Detroit, playing with an outstanding WR corps in Green Bay.

I don't think anyone's saying Flynn would put up similar numbers.

What some of us are saying is that RIGHT NOW, in 2012 Flynn gives the passing offense a better chance of succeeding over a rookie that's finding his way in the league.

Why? Because of his massive experience? Because of his outstanding arm? Because the coaching staff would suddenly have a change of heart and say, "Go sling it, kid" to Flynn when they haven't demonstrated that willingness with ANY other QB they've EVER had on the roster?

volsunghawk wrote:In other words, I do not believe - at ALL - that putting Flynn in the lineup would result in a vastly improved passing game or a more explosive offense.

What I DO believe is that putting Flynn in would signal to the team, its fanbase, and everyone watching that Seattle is second-guessing itself and that it can't commit to one guy at the most crucial position on the team.

1) There does not need to be "vast' improvement to turn those 2 losses to W's. Minor improvement is all that is needed, with potentially better vision and better reads/ reacts that could be done. Also not being scared to throw a tight pass in the redzone may help.

2) Why would Carroll say he thinks the QB competition continues over and over. His whole theme of compete every game and every week, best man plays gets over ruled to develop a rookie QB? Wilson doesn't have an expiration tag...not for 4 years at least...there just is NO hurry.

volsunghawk wrote:In other words, I do not believe - at ALL - that putting Flynn in the lineup would result in a vastly improved passing game or a more explosive offense.

What I DO believe is that putting Flynn in would signal to the team, its fanbase, and everyone watching that Seattle is second-guessing itself and that it can't commit to one guy at the most crucial position on the team.

1) There does not need to be "vast' improvement to turn those 2 losses to W's. Minor improvement is all that is needed, with potentially better vision and better reads/ reacts that could be done. Also not being scared to throw a tight pass in the redzone may help.

2) Why would Carroll say he thinks the QB competition continues over and over. His whole theme of compete every game and every week, best man plays gets over ruled to develop a rookie QB? Wilson doesn't have an expiration tag...not for 4 years at least...there just is NO hurry.

1. I do not think Flynn represents minor improvement. I don't think he represents an upgrade in any way.

2. Carroll may talk competition, but he has demonstrated that he will stick with his starting QB unless injury forces his hand. Hasselbeck in 2010 and Jackson in 2011 had some stretches of bad play, but we never saw the backup come in.

volsunghawk wrote:Why? Because of his massive experience? Because of his outstanding arm? Because the coaching staff would suddenly have a change of heart and say, "Go sling it, kid" to Flynn when they haven't demonstrated that willingness with ANY other QB they've EVER had on the roster?

No, and yes.

Flynn is more experienced, which means he knows how to read defenses better. He knows how to work through progressions faster. He knows when to change plays at the line better..........and yes this all means that more of the playbook would be used for Flynn.

Here's the deal. All Carroll is asking out of his QB right now is to manage games, which translates to "don't screw up, make a couple plays and let your defense dominate." So which QB right now is better at managing the game? Certainly not a rookie.

volsunghawk wrote:Why? Because of his massive experience? Because of his outstanding arm? Because the coaching staff would suddenly have a change of heart and say, "Go sling it, kid" to Flynn when they haven't demonstrated that willingness with ANY other QB they've EVER had on the roster?

No, and yes.

Flynn is more experienced, which means he knows how to read defenses better. He knows how to work through progressions faster. He knows when to change plays at the line better..........and yes this all means that more of the playbook would be used for Flynn.

Here's the deal. All Carroll is asking out of his QB right now is to manage games, which translates to "don't screw up, make a couple plays and let your defense dominate." So which QB right now is better at managing the game? Certainly not a rookie.

Bollocks. Flynn has 4 years of bench sitting. Where has Jim Sorgi's long bench sitting behind Manning gotten him?

volsunghawk wrote:Bollocks. Flynn has 4 years of bench sitting. Where has Jim Sorgi's long bench sitting behind Manning gotten him?

Well if you can't realize that a 4th year QB coming from arguably the best QB'ing team in the NFL is more adept at the nuances of the position like reading defenses and knowing where to go with the ball over a rookie with zero experience in those areas, then this conversation is over.

I'm not denying that Wilson has a better upside. But NOW, in 2012 he is not more equipped to run this offense over someone like Matt Flynn. Period.

volsunghawk wrote:Bollocks. Flynn has 4 years of bench sitting. Where has Jim Sorgi's long bench sitting behind Manning gotten him?

Well if you can't realize that a 4th year QB coming from arguably the best QB'ing team in the NFL is more adept at the nuances of the position like reading defenses and knowing where to go with the ball over a rookie with zero experience in those areas, then this conversation is over.

I'm not denying that Wilson has a better upside. But NOW, in 2012 he is not more equipped to run this offense over someone like Matt Flynn. Period.

Thanks for posting this English. I agree 100%. Greatness does not happen overnight it takes patience and the ever dreaded learning curve. Many of us, including myself, have been hoping for a QBOTF for the past couple years. I believe Wilson can be that guy and am willing to endure the pain of losses now for the promise of greatness in the future. We have been in every game to the last drive this year, this team will learn how to win the tight games in time. If given time I think that this offense could gel in the second half of the season which is exactly the right time for this to happen. If Wilson is pulled and Flynn inserted we will simply be starting the process over.

I will not deny that Wilson has struggled at times and as a fan it can difficult to watch, but I feel that the way he handles himself proffesionally and his consant desire to improve speaks volumes to his ability to be the future leader of this offense.

I would suggest that my previous post that explained why I disagree with putting Flynn in would settle any confusion about where I fall on this issue. And I'm consistent... I was against Flynn even signing here back before he was actually a FA.

Kolb has done nothing out of the ordinary for him thus far. He put up some stinkers in Philly and some good games. But he was then - and is now - inconsistent. His play wasn't the reason for Arizona's win in New England. And 289 yards did exactly jack for the Cardinals against the Rams (for the record, those 289 yards were on 50 attempts, with 28 completions - considering that Wilson usually attempts around 25 passes, that would be the equivalent of him completing 14 passes for 140 yards).

I don't know how the Cards would do with Skelton in there, but he did perform better for them last season than Kolb did, with the same cast of teammates.

EDIT: And you are the last person who should be talking about objectivity.

Putting Flynn in takes development time away from Wilson, and Wilson has shown more potential with THIS team than Flynn has - in practice and on the field.

I do not believe for a second that Flynn would put up even remotely similar numbers with THIS team that he did in one game against Detroit, playing with an outstanding WR corps in Green Bay.

I do not believe for a second that Carroll and Bevell would give Flynn a more wide-open passing game than they're giving Wilson. They would clamp down on him the same way they did with Wilson, and the same way they did with Jackson, and the same way they did with Hasselbeck.

In other words, I do not believe - at ALL - that putting Flynn in the lineup would result in a vastly improved passing game or a more explosive offense.

What I DO believe is that putting Flynn in would signal to the team, its fanbase, and everyone watching that Seattle is second-guessing itself and that it can't commit to one guy at the most crucial position on the team. It would signal a lack of faith in a guy they hand-picked. And yes, I believe that Wilson was a hand-picked potential franchise QB while Flynn was a fallback option in case the FO didn't get the guy they wanted. I believe that Wilson's work ethic, arm, and mobility all outrank Flynn's, and that those things are all reasons why Wilson won the starting job in the first place.

I also believe that Wilson needs experience to become a bonafide top-flight starting QB, and that putting Flynn in prevents this without giving us any value in return. I believe that 2013 is where Seattle's SB window is truly and fully open - with more experience for the O-line and perhaps a playmaker at WR - and that this year is crucial for Wilson to gain experience so the offense hits on all cylinders next season. Please don't, however, think that I'm talking about throwing this season away. I think we can still make a run, since anything can happen on any given Sunday. But I think we're better situated for 2013, and that we must get our franchise QB the necessary experience for that to happen. Plus, I disagree that Flynn would be any sort of upgrade, so a developing Wilson is still the top QB on the team.

volsunghawk wrote:... I was against Flynn even signing here back before he was actually a FA.

EDIT: And you are the last person who should be talking about objectivity.

Classic.

Dude, read.

I have already pointed out that I am not objective when it comes to the "sit Wilson/start Flynn" argument. I said it in the beginning of the damn post you just quoted. But you've been swinging from Flynn's jock for months now, so you have no claim to objectivity, either.

volsunghawk wrote:... I was against Flynn even signing here back before he was actually a FA.

EDIT: And you are the last person who should be talking about objectivity.

Classic.

Dude, read.

I have already pointed out that I am not objective when it comes to the "sit Wilson/start Flynn" argument. I said it in the beginning of the damn post you just quoted. But you've been swinging from Flynn's jock for months now, so you have no claim to objectivity, either.

You are wrong there bud.I've always liked both Flynn and Wilson, I supported the decision to start him after his play in pre season took command. That does not mean that I quit believing Flynn could lead this team this year, and now the picture HAS changed whether you and the Wilson fan club (no matter what play him club) want to admit it or not. Wilson is not even close to playing at the level he did in pre season when I supported the move. That simply cannot be argued. So, now comes the time to do what's best for the team. Unfortunately for Flynn that is an uphill battle because of all the purple tongues on Wilsons side.

Sgt. Largent wrote:I'm not denying that Wilson has a better upside. But NOW, in 2012 he is not more equipped to run this offense over someone like Matt Flynn. Period.

And once Flynn gets us a deep playoff run this year, everyone will suddenly be perfectly happy to bench him in favor of RW in 2013? I highly doubt that. "Win Now" is too powerful.

Seattle has two young quarterbacks. Neither are the next coming of Peyton Manning and so both are and will remain, in different ways, dependent on scheme and surrounding talent. Each needs development, the right kind of receivers, and belief from the organization.

Therefore, whomever Seattle chose this year, they needed to stick with him and invest in his growth long-term. Wilson won that trust and has not yet lost it.

"We don't even need your stupid a-- that much. We can win Super Bowls with retired Kerry f------- Collins right now, and you want to be the highest paid player of all-time? F--- you." - Tical21 to Russell Wilson, 6/30/15

volsunghawk wrote:Bollocks. Flynn has 4 years of bench sitting. Where has Jim Sorgi's long bench sitting behind Manning gotten him?

Wow, I'm pretty shocked to see you fighting tooth and nail with this one Volsung (just doesn't seem like you would, but, here it is).

Is the other side of the argument that tough to grasp? I mean, it's not like this rookie has actually shown he has "lights out" play brilliance in a season game (could care less about preseason, as should everyone else). How many points does he put up against even so-so divisional teams D's? How many 3rd downs lost? How many red zones tossed away? (and yes, it's about putting points on the boards, not the stats, because with even mediocre QB play we win PHX and STL). And can any of us really say we heartily won the GB...in our wicked house btw? Was it RW's genius that won that game?

Is the rebuttal that tough to grasp? Our D (and special teams, and punter, coaches, and water boys) have kept us within games. All this in spite of our resident heart throb behind center. The ONLY constant has been his lack of performance, urgency, and execution.This isn't a "hater situation" with RW, it's something that just is. Will he reign in his game one day? Sure, never say never. Is he the right man on the field right now, h*ll no (imo). Should he ever have been? h*ll no (imo).You put in the qb who's had more hours/days/years (yes, even benched) while learning to read D's, expanding the playbook, honing the skills and yeah I'm afraid I agree Flynn aids our fantastic team (heck, even dink and dunk beats PHX and STL game).

I just do not understand this fawning over Wilson right now. I don't dislike the kid (at all, except for his interviewing btw, which is a bit pompous in comparison to his actual output imo but whatever there. who cares about that?), I just feel, like many rooks, he needs time to get his game together before playing leader with this talent on the field.If I'm bothered with anyone it's PC with this (not RW).

So, should the Colts have kept Curtis Painter who spent all those years behind Peyton Manning and started him over Luck, purely based on NFL 'experience'? David Carr is still around on the Giants, maybe sitting behind Eli for all these years made him forget what it felt like to be sacked 9 times a game and can lead them to another superbowl. For the Flynn argument, how does anyone know we win those games with Flynn? It seems like it is almost guarenteed we are 5-0 with Flynn by some of you. This thread acts like some are just arguing for the sake of arguing. There is absolutely nothing to prove we would be better with Flynn in there. We would be 0-5 if Flynn was starting. There is an opinion with zero substance as well, since we wont ever know what would have happened.

This thread was to point out how RW is improving week by week. Besides the one throw to Mccoy that was a step behind him, he played very solid. He is not overthrowing receivers anymore, his pocket awareness is getting better, and his playaction is MUCH improved. We wont see interior pressure like we saw against the Cards again this year, and that has the worst game he played from a pocket standpoint. Wasn't he 12/13 at halftime? I HIGHLY doubt we see RW break 300 yards this year, because that isn't what PC is going to let happen. It seems very unlikely we are ever far behind enough with how our defense plays to change our gameplan and make RW throw it 55 times like Andrew Luck did this week. That would stay true if Flynn was playing as well.

I'd love the people who are in favor of starting Flynn to tell me the numbers they expect RW to put up before they will finally live with the team's decision.

Give me raw numbers. 8 TDs a game? 600 Yards passing? Zero interceptions for a season? This isn't fantasy football. This is real football. Played by human beings in a life setting. Even the best Qb's throw a pick 6. It happens. Could Wilson's pick-6 yesterday have cost us the game? Sure. But it didn't, and that's the reality.

And the idea that people don't expect Flynn to put up the Detroit game numbers? Quit fooling yourselves. That is exactly why you are in favor of starting Flynn. That game is the reason many people on this board even knew who Matt Flynn was before we signed him. If the Detroit game never happened, no one would be calling for Flynn to start. And despite the Detroit game, there wasn't a floodgate of teams throwing Matt Flynn Kevin Kolb money in free agency.

It is OKAY to change your mind about the QB situation. I was a big Flynn supporter. I drank the Kool-Aid. I had visions of the Detroit game, just like all the current Flynn supporters. However, i know that PC, JC and the rest of the coaching staff forget more football knowledge in a day than i will learn in a lifetime.

Support our Team. Support our starting QB. His name is Russell Wilson.

Verndog wrote:I'll get 100% behind Wilson when I see solid evidence he is a better QB then Flynn (this team, this O, this year). Our goal was to improve at the QB position from TJack. Please go look at the numbers, we still haven't done that after 5 games, so our objectives in making changes have not been met.

Nice to get the W and to see some improvement, but that is not enough given the weakness of the opponents D.

I've said this before, but if you think RW = TJ, then I don't know what to tell you. TJ never put together a single game winning drive in the third/fourth quarter for us. RW already has 2 of those. In addition, we win the time of possession battle almost every game. That rarely happened with TJ. There really isn't a comparison in my mind RW is much greater than TJ.....

And, while I was all for starting Flynn this year, RW has pretty much won me over. I am sad that we can't trade Flynn next year for a #1 draft pick, but I'm happy with how RW is handling this and I see his improvement every game. I'm pretty freaking happy overall...

"I want to drink Ranier Beer out of a mug made from Jim harbaugh's hollowed out skull." CANHAWK

SalishHawkFan wrote:We don't know what we have in Flynn seems to be the only defense for not starting him. Well we DO know this: After 5 games, Wilson is averaging 60 yards per game less passing than TJack. Now we know TJack couldn't have gotten any better. I hated getting him, but I respect what he did here. Still, Wilson is a rookie and we've taken a step BACK with Wilson under center. The upside is that - and while there is no guarantee - I think we ALL agree that Wilson will one day be much better than TJack ever could be.

So we took a step backwards this season, when we have the No 1 defense and a top 10 rushing attack, in order to groom Wilson to be the QBOTF. That decision cost us being 5-0 because with TJack's extra 60 yards passing per game after 5 games last year, we'd have beaten both AZ and the Rams. The GB game wouldn't have been as close either. Nor would the Carolina game.

What else do we KNOW? That Flynn was much better than TJack. That it is quite possible Wilson won the starting job due to Matt Flynn's tendinitis. That TJack was always gone from this team unless either Wilson or Flynn totally flopped, because both QB's have more upside than TJack ever will.

So, since Flynn was much better than Tjack and TJack would have done better than Wilson these first five games due to Wilson being a rookie, it is pretty much nondebatable that we DO KNOW that Flynn would have been better than Wilson these first five games had he started. And if TJacks 60 yards of extra passing a game would have made us 5-0, then it's safe to say had we started Flynn right now we'd be 5-0.

Not that what we think will possibly matter. It's all moot now. It's Wilson's job to lose.

That "transitive property" crap you're peddling is nothing but speculation.

Wilson is passing for fewer yards than Jackson did through 5 games last season, yeah. It helps that Jackson was in charge of a no-huddle offense that went pass happy in Weeks 4 and 5 last season. If you compare the first three games of each season to each other, it's a hell of a lot closer. Plus, Wilson is attempting 10 fewer passes per game than Jackson did at the start of last season. Put Wilson in a no-huddle and give him more attempts per game, and sure, you might see his numbers improve.

But that doesn't seem to be the kind of offensive identity that the team wants to adopt, and last year's performances bear that out. The team didn't start stringing together wins until it abandoned the pass-happy, big yardage offense and switched to a run-heavy offense that limited the passing attempts and yardage. Look at the stretch last season when Seattle won 5 of 6. The most passing yardage in any of those games? 226. And the attempts per game ranged from 16 to 34, with the average being well below the 35 attempts per game in the first 5 games of the season.

This obsession with yards per game is retarded.

WOOT!!!! Couldn't agree more Volsung!

"I want to drink Ranier Beer out of a mug made from Jim harbaugh's hollowed out skull." CANHAWK

Can someone remind me when backing the teams starting QB became such a negative thing?

Who's saying YOU can't be excited with our QB? This isn't a negativity thing - period. It's Hawk football talk at most.

I'm just relaying "I'm" not excited about our QB (along with listing reasons why, where so far nobody has had an acceptable response other than "hey man, just be patient"). So telling those who feel the same in demanding RW respect...it's a bit much. I had a great time seeing them win, nothing changes there. And so goes the QB problem - nothing changes there.

Our defense play, now that's something to shout from the mountain. RW? no...just no (imo). PC gets a raised brow from me on that topic.

Basis4day wrote:I'd love the people who are in favor of starting Flynn to tell me the numbers they expect RW to put up before they will finally live with the team's decision.

What it all boils down to is scoring points. Right now we are at 28th @17.2 per game. With our D and all the chances they give to the offense, and the top 5 RB in the league, we should be able to have somewhere near league average @23 per game IMO. I'd shut up if we hit 20 because after 20 there is a real good chance we win.